Tag it if you dare mate, but you're on your own with this one. :) -- T.(talk) 19:00, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is really a complicated joke involving featuring complete crap... --Chronarion 18:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

WTF; this is awful. I mean, I've written crap, but I don't try to get it on the front page. Mindspillage 20:16, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I get the joke but it's very, very Lame... I mean like "Why wouldn't they let the stinkbug into the movie? HE HAD ONLY ONE SCENT AND IT WASN'T ENOUGH!" more lame than that lame. Bleek II 20:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There was no joke int he article. It's pure, unadulterated genius as it originally was, and not the crappy hack that someone made it into--Sir FlammableKUN 21:38, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page

Keep this piece of crap just for the talk page... I love this talk page so much, it is my only friend and distraction. What would I do without it? Tell me what?? I cut my wrist today, should become a nice scar tomorrow. Pizza. Madretsma 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Okay, so there seems to be some dissension as to whether Euroipods deserves to be the featured article. I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out answer: Yes. That is all, go back to work. --—rc(t) 23:56, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out reply to your answer:Go fuck yourself. That is all, go back to wanking. (This one-liner wrote by an unknown genious should be featured.--200.161.136.227 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

I was a skeptic as to weather or not this should actually be a featured article, at least at first. It pales in comparission to "J.D. Salinger", "AAAAAAAAA!", and "Redundancy" (and "Redundancy" for that matter). I however, though not compleatly, changed my mind after reading the article submitted by Putz above. Although I'm not quite sure if theres some deeper joke here, I do belive that it's "Featured Article" material. Lets all just agree that somthing new isin't always bad, and sometimes somthing new is gooder then somthing old. I only hope that no one tries to replicate it.--MrJimmy 05:32, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Making an article like this a featured article was damn funny this time. Doing it again would be just plain stupid. --Putz 22:58, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't funny, it as shit. Nothing about this article is funny in any way, shape or form. It's just a one-liner about freeipods under a different name. Normally this stuff gets QVFD'd in an instant. And to make matters worse the article has been locked to prevent people from making it funny. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:27, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It IS funny (please note that, if nothing else, the fact that I bolded and uppercased the word "is" makes Euroipods funny), but quite obviously not everyone will think that. Since some (Nintendorulez) have yet to stop argueing about it however, I will provide the joke behind Euroipods; it is as follows: Euroipods, when boiled down, isin't funny at all, but that, in essence, is what makes it funny (enough commas?). This artcle has a ban however, if anyone gets the bright idea that posting anymore true "one liners," it will cease to be funny and just be annoying.--MrJimmy 04:25, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Tourette's Syndrome's talk page had a purpose, the people in there were really trying to argue for somthing that could be considered "just." We're just in here deciding if giving away free iPods in Europe, over the internet, is funny if you put it in encyclopedia form.--MrJimmy 16:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Okay guys, here's the deal. I want you to compile a list of things you think are funny and then those will be the rules by which I choose featured articles. Here is a empty, pre-formatted list for you.

Things that are funny to me

1.Not Euroipods, which makes me very confused and upset
2.
3.
4.
5.

Please sign your name so that I know who to laugh at. --—rc(t) 02:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

1. Not Euroipods, which makes me confused and very upset.

2. Things that have a joke.

3. AAA AAAAAAAAA, AAAAA AAAAA AA AAAAAAAA AAA AAAA AAAAA.

Seriously, explain the joke here. It just looks like a crappy page that failed to get QVFD'd.

lol another subheading

Why Euroipods is funny:

It was getting to crouded up there so I have moved down here to finally break down every possible joke within the article, specifically so that Nintendrulez will go away.

Reason 1: As was provided above, this article is funny because it is not funny. It may seem absurd but it is the truth. See also this article from the prestigous University of Binghamton: [1]

Reason 2: If you will notice (although you'd have to be as slow as me not to notice) the fact that in the first line of the article it states: "A website giving away free ipods..." Now note the second line, sub-devision a, it states "money," as in they charge for their "free iPods."

Just rest assured that your only one unimportant person on the internet, and while you may be able to gather an army of people like you, I will always be here to fight them off. And it is too funny!--MrJimmyJournaltalk 00:57, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If there's a joke, than what is it? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:40, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Your still pushing this? Your still asking what the joke is after I've provided it in many different, not to mention redundant, forms? Your presistant...--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:43, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

*Picks it up again* It's not funny, to you. I, and many others think it is HIL-arious.*Drops yet again*--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:32, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Let's solve this by giving you the reason we give people who whine about fair bans: "Because we felt like it." It's silly, stupid, unexpected. Just let it go. -.-' --Sir FlammableKUN 01:42, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reason 5:Everyone likes the logical fallacy of having a page that 'is funny because it isn't funny'. Or do we. It's like that time white became black because it wasn't black at the time. It's like me calling you stupid if EVERYONE KNOWS you're smart. Now you can logically suck my phallus.

A Resolution.

I don't mean to sound like I'm pushing it or somthing, but I think I wrote some pretty funny comentary stuff in my journal about all this. Also has anyone ever made a Talk:Talk:"Article here" page?--MrJimmyJournaltalk 20:03, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've made Talk:Talk:Main Page, but I think it's been deleted. Note that the tab link to the main article is red, despite Talk:Main Page clearly existing. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't feel like surgically removing all your links to it, because I don't care enough to. I just rolled you back. The reason it is annoying is because it triggers as an orphaned talk page (which it is, and in most cases, those should not exist for main article space). So, stop making them, kthx. --Splaka 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was linked to on this page when I made it, so wouldn't that mean it's not orphaned? I though orphaned pages means nothing links to them. --User:Nintendorulez 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned in the sense of having no article to go with it (eg, you go to the page, and the [article] link is red). --Splaka 05:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

CapItols?

In the advertIsement (See the top), they capItolIze the letter "i" in iPods, Europe Is WeIrd.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:38, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

'Tis a Marketing Technique....it works because your brain recognises that there shouldn't be a capital letter in the middle of the word, making it stand out more. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

GUYS! ENOUGH WITH THE DRAMA, you're making ED envious.

It was a joke. Jay Oh Kay Ee. Joke. Let it be. You're all beating it to death over the one day it was up. --Chronarion 05:20, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I found this in the dictionary : Joke nfunny activity or story.

Notice it says funny. So it wasn't really a joke, now was it?

Dammit, I wanted to bring up the fact that it's not a joke. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:09, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is a joke, if anything, it in combonation with it's talk page make it a joke.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 21:32, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to put the word "funny" in the definition in both bold AND italics in order for you to see it? Fine, I will

So why was it featured?

Sorry to bring this all up again, but how can you possibly say the reason was "because we like it" if it was voted strongly against on VFH? Surely that demonstrates that we don't actually like it at all? I mean, what is the point of VFH if not to gauge what we like? And surely this talk page proves that most of us don't like it too... --Carlos the Mean 01:07, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to thwart your continuing this arguement Carl, but quite abviously, "we" does not include you. "We" includes everyone who liked it, and there were people who liked it. So it is written and so it shall be featured.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:51, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Amen! However, as the complaining has gained shrillness and lost humor (and I figure I've already "won," anyway), I won't be reverting changes to Euroipods anymore. That's right, if someone wants to expand Euroipods, go ahead. Now Nintendorulez can stop paying for psychiatric therapy and maybe buy a brain sense of humor with the extra money. "It's not a joke. It's not a joke. It's not a joke I'm so upset IT'S NOT A JOKE!" --—rc(t) 06:36, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So you mean we can fuck it up all we want now? This'll be fun...

Good. Once this becomes a decent article, we can put this whole thing behind us and pretend it was decent when it was first featured. Then it will no longer be a disgrace to Uncyclopedia. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My point is that we does include me, and everybody in Uncyclopedia, hence the voting. If you just said that 'we' always includes the people that like it, then everything on VFH should automatically be featured... but the point is, Uncyclopedia (or at least VFH) is democratic and this was outvoted as a featureable article. I just think whoever's responsible should admit that they're wrong, because otherwise I can see the admins continuing to do things just because they like it, and not adhering to the wiki spirit. --Carlos the Mean 00:30, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I was responsible. I don't admit that I was wrong. I admit to doing something that amused some people, ticked off some others, and resulted in a fairly hilarious talk page - all the result of less than a day of featurization. I also believe that it was done in the Uncyclopedia spirit. Heaven forbid the admins do something unexpected/undemocratic that doesn't even affect the users aside from making them divert their eyes from a little box on the front page for a few hours. --—rc(t) 01:44, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You're right, actually, this is pretty Uncyclopedic. But the talk page isn't funny. That comment makes all of the Jesii cry. I think you should explain why it's funny in three or more bullet points... --Carlos the Mean 05:03, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Okay, so there seems to be some dissension as to whether Euroipods deserves to be the featured article. I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out answer: Yes. That is all, go back to work." --Rcmurphy Sq.W (Talk) 23:56, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Waaaaait for it...

"I'm here to provide you with a well-researched and thought-out reply to your answer:Go fuck yourself. That is all, go back to wanking." - IP

So that's one "joke" in it's entirity, and it's a lame one. Not funny, not frontpage material. --Carlos the Mean 10:06, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm the guy who wrote that one, and it only took 2 seconds to think of it. It wasn't even meant to be all that funny.

I just "expanded" the article. You remember you said you wouldn't revert it, right?

So were you just acting randomly, or were you taking the piss out of the stupid stuff people people vote to be featured sometimes? Because I know people do elect some pretty stupid stuff. (AAAAAAAAA!)

Unlike Euroipods, AAAAAAAAA! had an actual democratic route to featured article and theme of the day. Mostly due to the wonderful efforts of an AOL vandal to try to vandalize it, giving it overwhelming anti-vandal sympathy and community support. Heh heh heh. --Splaka 23:10, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Look, AOL guy who hates Euroipods, I don't care what you think/write about me or Euroipods, as long as you write it on this talk page or my user talk page. Quit vandalizing other pages. It's pathetic. --—rc(t) 04:39, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is the best I could do with MSPaint, if anyone else wants to replace it with a much better Photoshop version and put it in the correct place, go ahead. I know it's horrible, and in the wrong talk page, but Nin asked for it here.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 07:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No, and it appears to be true despite the Oscar Wilde quote, so actually I think deletion would be more appropriate (yes, I know I'm heartless!)--Sweet Indigo 16:13, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

192 votes. Is this a sociological experiment to see what kind of articles actually get elected for highlight? I'm of course alluding to Rcmurphy's "don't worry, it serves a purpose comment." ;) Hooloovoo 17:26, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Strong Against - This person may have come from a website where it is ok to be unfunny. But this just doesn't cut it on Uncyclopedia Jeydehn 07:04, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

10 PRINT "Strong object" : GOTO 10 Article contains only three statements, and two of those are factual. Also, User:Rcmurphy claims the article serves a purpose, when UP articles clearly should serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. 62.252.32.12 02:18, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

According to all my math knowledge, the overall vote was against. And other articles had much, much, much more "for" votes and much less "against" votes than this one did. So why the hell were the rules broken and this crap featured? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:47, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. Look, I'm trying to be serious here. Save the humor for the articles. Just because you're an admin doesn't justify violating concensus like this.

Okay. As Dictator, I hereby authorize that one time violation of consensus. Yes, there is a pseudo democracy on this wiki. Yes, it is generally followed. Was it followed for this case? No. However, this was a couple of weeks ago, and you're dragging this out longer than Election 2000. The past ain't gonna change, so i'll take this day in North Korea to adjunct the rules. --Chronarion 22:41, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)--70.107.134.109 22:39, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moral of the Story

If you get rcmurphy on your side you cant lose cuz hes god and everyone knows it so bow now or be yelled at and embaressed for the rest of your life.(like nintendorulez)
--4.252.210.192 02:19, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)(Tompkins)

Has ED started an article on this yet?

Not that they matter at all anymore, as we have swiftly crushed them in the Wiki Wars, but this stuff is (as Chron mentioned earlier in the page) exactly what those Cretins at encyc. dramaeaeaetica love to write about. --Savethemooses 16:39, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is fargin war!

Hey, where is my free Euroipod! What kind of scam is this anyway? Does Steve Jobs know about this kind of rip-off? How come I keep getting more spam email and my buddies that I signed up are mad at me? I live in the USA and this is discrimination because I don't live in Europe, isn't it? I want my free Euroipod, dammit! Don't make me come over there and invade Europe with my army of pirates and ninjas. Honestly, who is going to stop us? The UN? They don't even have an Army to sanction me with. What nations can stop us, France, don't make me laugh, The Netherlands, bunch of liberalwankers there. I mean youth socialism has created a lot of Eurotrash who cannot fight. What is to stop me and my army from walking in and taking our free Euroipods? Oh wait, it is from Eastern Europe? After the fall of the USSR, their economy is a joke. I could buy one of their cities for the price of a USAiPod. I can make a killing selling VHS copies of 1970's and 1980's USA TV Shows, because they are starved for good programs. Nah I think I'll plan the invasion, tell CNN and Fox News what I am up to, and bring back all the Euroipods to the USA that I can. --Orion Blastar 01:59, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I apologize The Netherlands are not a bunch of liberal wankers. I misspoke in a fit of anger. They are all nice people and kind to others, just don't eat the brownies at the Dutch coffee shops. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the article has been "improved" by Nintendorulez

Congratulations on being able to keep that "not funny" message box there for so long. I thought some dipshit would've deleted it by now. --64.12.117.5 01:17, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Can we infer from the lack of objections that the punishment fits the crime? :) -- T.(talk) 16:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Us smart people are just taking our time to object. --207.200.116.197 21:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I can see why Nintendorulez would be pissed about there being a Nin on the page. Can we make it Anais Nin? Then it's funnier and it's obviously not Nintendorulez--RudolfRadna 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am quite pissed off that my name is there supporting euripods. I hate it a lot, and I want that testimonial removed, or at least the name changed. I'd do it myself, but I have a feeling I'd get banned for it. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because when people see "Nin," they automatically think "Nintendorulez." --—rc(t) 17:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well who the hell else would it refer to? It's an obvious attempt at being subtle and pissing me off. If it really isn't meant to refer to me in any way, then I suppose you wouldn't mind changing the name there. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course the people who have been involved in the Euroipods saga know who it refers to. But they know about your role in the whole thing anyway, with or without the testimonial. New people are the ones who I was referring to. --—rc(t) 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still an uncalled for joke at my expense, and as such I should be the one who decides whether or not it stays. I WANT IT REMOVED. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a big, big joke at the expense of that Poodle guy in the tourette's article? And weren't you the guy on the Talk page extracting most of the urine? Telling him to basically shut his mouth and piss off? LOL! Nin, u rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly rly suck the seven balls off your crackwhore of a mom, dude--82.44.21.151 18:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But David, there's no mention of "DrPoodle" or any derivative of his username in the main Tourette's Syndrome article. I suppose you could add one, though... Besides, User:DrPoodle is only an occasional contributor, whereas Nintendorulez is a regular contributor. So really, it's not quite the same thing. I'm in this position myself actually, though to a somewhat lesser extent because most of the pages that attack me are obscure sock-puppet user pages that hardly anything links to. But the same principle applies: Using main article space to attack established contributors, even if only the user being attacked notices it, and even if it might actually be sort of funny, is just bad for business. (Unless of course it's User:Mhaille who's being attacked, in which case it's highly encouraged!) c • > •cunwapquc?18:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A bite! I havn't argued over the internet in years! So basically, it's okay to insult someone if you don't mention their name? And so long as they arn't a regular contributor? But shurly in either case the contributor is a HUMAN BEING!!! And surely the only reason why it is significant to put a person's name in an article, for as the guy in the Miller play says 'Because it is my name! Because I will not have another like it...IN MY LIFE!,' is because it is hurtful to that person. As such, given that the quantity of contribution is irrelevant and the cause of concern to each party is the hurt engendered by the content of personally orientated parts of articals - THEN surely sir, there is nothing to distinguish in terms of reprehensibility either the attack on Poodle and the wryyyyyyyyysubtle attack on Bintendo RUlz? yah? You must see - they are quite the same thing on a most basic level. let me lay it down:

Both contributors are members of the human race foremost, posters on UNCY someway less and even further back they are different sorts of posters. We must concern ourselves with the fact that both are humans with human feelings, so where the hurt of feelings is the object of an action, both of these agents should be equally regarded when we are considering the impact of the hurting of the feelings in question.

But are both of the examples of hurtful things the same? Yes you daft cunt! They both twist a person's words to hurt them. So why should we spare mentioning Nin's name? We want to hurt him! Using his name is one of way of doing it, like making the Poodle doctor look like he types all wrong!!!!!!! And as he, Nin, enjoys 'hurting' people, the pleasure should be immediate to his recall. 'Ah yes, now I recall when I was ripping the piss out of that uppity shithead spastic. lol I shure showed him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11' So yeah, what's Nin's problem? He knows why it's funny to do this to people. it's fun to hurt people, people are all the same and so hurting different people still the same kind of hurting, so if you don't like being hurt by people then don't hurt people. because then you are doing something which is exactly the same as the thing you then say should not be done.

ftw!

Twisting words and meanings as usual, I see. Oh well, I guess I have to go over this point by point: Yes, I'd say it's okay to insult someone in the main namespace as long as you don't mention their name, or any derivative of it, because that way the rest of the world doesn't necessarily know who or what you're referring to. There's a level of deniability that both you and the victim lose when you start naming names. Honestly, if I were insulted here in such a way that I knew, for a fact, that no other user on this site had any idea as to who the insult was directed at, then sure - why would I care? In fact, I could probably just go in and edit the offending material and only me and the original offender would know why I did that. But that's not the case here. And of course being a regular contributor makes a difference. This is a community, and User:Nintendorulez is a member of this community whether we like it or not. He must be given a greater amount of respect on that basis alone, even if he deserves the insult, because if we don't, everyone else here is going to be thinking "will I be next?" It's what we call a "chilling effect," and it makes people leave, and often go somewhere else and bad-mouth us, at a time when we can't afford a lot of defections.

And no, it doesn't matter, and wouldn't matter, if there were other, legitimate reasons for using the name "Anais Nin" in the article. The point is that we, the members of this community, know what it means, we know why it's being done, and we know why the people who are doing it are refusing to stop. And even if we totally support them, there's nothing especially priceless about that gag (if it can even be called that) beyond its intent that makes it worth keeping. Maybe it's just my opinion, but better-quality stuff gets deleted here every hour of every day, and few people cry over it. And as for User:DrPoodle, personally I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt too — if he wanted those talk page entries to disappear, I'd support that. But again, his name isn't used in the actual Tourette's article, and that makes a difference, at least to me. And really, the whole question of whether or not it's fun, or funny, to hurt people is something I see as immaterial — but even there, your premise is flawed. Offensiveness used in the service of humor is fine, but humor used in the service of offensiveness is not (even if we occasionally do allow it, for whatever reason). Particularly if the offensiveness is directed at a known individual.

Last but not least, you resort to this equally-flawed notion that both situations are the same simply because both Nintendorulez and DrPoodle are human beings. (Technically, they're anonymous textual avatars of entities that might be human beings, but that's of little relevance here.) That's simply a straw-man argument. People get psychologically hurt all the time, by all kinds of things — it's unavoidable as long as people have emotions and feelings. But once again, you're trying to apply Wikipedia-based notions of civility to this site, and that's simply wrong. I understand why you do it, and I even understand why civility is essential, but in this context, civility has a completely different meaning. In effect, we have to convince everyone, and especially n00bs and AnonIP's, that we don't take anything seriously, and that they shouldn't either. There's far too much offensive content here to try to make the claim that offending people is wrong and "should not be done" — that would be complete hypocrisy. And obviously, it would be nice if Nintendorulez would simply shut up and not complain about the Anais Nin reference, but he isn't doing that. And as long as he isn't doing that, we have to weigh the benefit of consistently maintaining the policy of never backing down against the negativity this situation is generating. I don't think the negativity is worth it. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a simple difference of opinion, and I'm not even saying you're wrong in any objective sense. In fact, even after all that's happened, I still have some degree of respect for you. But your hiding behind an AnonIP while in the midst of a deletion spree in order to call me a "daft cunt," when it's obvious who you are, isn't going to convince me you're right, either. c • > •cunwapquc?02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does this always happen? Yes I could type tl;dr, but that would be so bloody facile. And I'm simply not that cool either. So it's wrong to take things seriously, but if you take things seriously enough then you should have your demands acceded to in order to shut you up? kewl. Offensiveness in humour is ok, but humour in offensiveness is not? But shurly, shur, the Nin thing is humour on account of it's offensiveness? Right? Yeah I-I'm right. So it's offensiveness in the service of humour as well as being offensiveness in the guise of humour - but for god's sake, if we're going to be offensive then SOMEONE is going to get hurt! In this case it's Nin, and in that case I think it's allowable because his outrage is also the cornerstone of an interesting hypocrisy. CWIM (sea wot eye mean?)?

Two wrongs don't don't make a right? That sounds dubiously moral for uncy - isn't an eye for an eye a better adege for this place? Not 'let's all behave and get along and then we'll all behave and get along.' Christ that's SO Wikipedia it makes me want to shove needles into the joins of my index finger and dislocate it!

As you can probably tell, I'm having difficulty finding the patience to fully understand you. You appear to contradict yourself on points of manners. Please, find the time to put it simple. Then perhaps my answers will make sense, until that point you not only resemble a daft cunt. You are a daft cunt. Furthermore, elongated mutant pretentiousness in language will never impress me no matter how very hard your try XD ftw! P.S. I'm so confused, who the hell do you think I am anyway?--82.44.21.151 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the expletives into DrPoodle's quote. I initially took a Wikipedia article, and inserted the swears. Then he complained, and someone put the swears in his complaint, all went nuts from there. I would be against the changing of DrPoodle's post if it weren't for two things:

He blanked the main article with it, rather than leaving a simple complaint on the talk page. IMHO, that makes the content fair game. Fisher Price, anyone?

It's too much of an integral part of the joke to change at this point. We have the parody complaints from China and whatnot.

Nin, is that you? I'll pretend i've got a file detailing the various points of this argument sitting right next to me and refrain from going 'What the fuck is not quite the same?!' Yeah, because I'm totally totally up-to-date on this thing, swim? So basically - what are talking about, what isn't the same? And are you saying that taking the piss out of tourette's is ok if someone with tourette's pisses you off, in the same way that bombing Dresden was ok because the nazis really pissed everyone off? Answers on a soggy brown postcard, plx! XXXXD btw, if I have not already won, then now i win.--82.44.21.151 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but this is Uncyclopedia, and we don't "dumb it down" for anybody, especially someone who can't even be bothered to register an account. So I'm afraid you not only don't win, you lose, and in fact I win, because I say so. Is that more understandable, Mister Twistwords? c • > •cunwapquc?07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what the hell he just said... But I've explained the differences. He vandalized the article with his letter. So it was part of the article from the beginning, and released under the GFDL. We simply made his letter funny, and he wanted to remove his contribution. The difference here is that I never vandalized this article, someone just put an attack on me into it. --User:Nintendorulez 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Twistwords here! Dumb-down? I'm only asking you to make sense, for christ's sake! Do it for christ, you insane fucktard. The point is, if there is a point, and if there is a point, at all, then the point is that I, Mr. Twistwords, as you have so dubbed me, cannot penetrate the sliding, sloping moutain of dog-shit that was your reply to one of my more heated remarks. My point is simply this: Long years on the debating circuit should bless me with the patience to listen to a man who thinks he has eight brains and need to let them all speak together at once. But it has not, I 'zone-out,' my masturbating arm twitches to flick the page back up in order to re-read the entire sphere of crapulance you have created, but then.....-sands of time-.....and I just think 'can i be fucked?' I know that either your argument will fail on a basic level, that you are mistaken or the point you make is utter madness. or, you know, prove me wrong by getting one person in here with the patiance and time to follow firstly my powerfully compelling initial argument, your grinding abortion of a rebuttal and then my irreverent couldn't-care-less subsequant responses. And Nin, you frigging lunatic - can't you see that the idea is that you took the piss out of someone with a real grievence with utter delight, now when people rip it outta your flaming red-hot ass you cry 'noes!' and try to push it all in again. Yeah, he vandalized the artical with his measured remarks and was destroyed for his crimes - so what? I don't care, you don't care, but therefore we should neither care if you are mildly ridiculed for simply being a little self-inflated with your own crazy little opinions about some article on ipods, rite? s'funny! not harming anyone, so stfu and remove your hands from your anus - the shit has already been extracted, sir!!!! XD And why did i get called David earlier? And surely I win because I said so first? neither of you guys are straight, are you?--82.44.21.151 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, pardon me for interjecting, but... S. U., Nin... why on earth are you even humoring this person? Really, all it's doing is adding useless length to an already uselessly long talk page... oh wait, now I'm guilty too. Damn. Well, I guess, in summation, D.N.F.T. Oh, and Mr. IP Number, where can I get some of what you're smoking? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why am I humoring this person...? That's a fair question, I suppose. I thought he was someone familiar, based on the geolocation of his IP address, his use of Australian invective (despite that location), and his intimate familiarity with Uncyclopedia backstory going back over, like, nine months... (And also his quickness to hurl such invective at me, of course.) But I'm now about 60-70 percent certain I was wrong initially, and that this is actually someone from Encyclopaedia Dramatica. My knowledge of that site is limited, but I suspect this could be "User:Samsara" or even LJDrama himself, even. (Woo hoo!) The point of the exercise seems to be to get revenge on Nintendorulez for "trolling" ED, i.e., by going over there and daring to suggest that Uncyclopedia would win some sort of objectively-judged contest comparing the ten "best" articles on each site, and no doubt a variety of other endlessly fascinating ideas. Either way, I'm through with him. After all, I already won, what, three entries ago? c • > •cunwapquc?19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard for me to say, honestly, as the overall coherency of the postings dropped well below the watermark set by M. P.'s "Silliest Sketch Ever" in 1970. (That might warrant an award.) But, seeing as you emerged relatively lucid from this ordeal, I'd say the judging panel would have to default victory to you, yes. Well done, Mr. Clean-Air System! As to the identity of this strange fruit, I'm at a total loss, but you have my sympathies nonetheless as you seem to already be accquainted with "persons" of this particular ilk. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of something.

I've always found this article incredibly stupid, and it ought to have been deleted in the first place due to being an unfunny one-liner, but there's one more reason I just noticed: It's vanity. I think everyone but the article creator never heard of the site before reading this article. All this article does is give them free advertising. If you really want to feature some unfunny stub, this one shouldn't be it. In fact, I think the reason why rcmurphy bypassed the democratic voting process to nominate this is so that he could obtain referrals for his iPod. Wikipedia does not have an article for this website, so why should we? It's extremely insignificant, and should be labeled as vanity and deleted. --64.9.10.166 19:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

1. We're not Wikipedia, we are a parody site that is loosely based on Wikipedia. If you read Wikipedia so much, you might already know about their article about Uncyclopedia, where they state that we are more of a parody of ourselves then anything else. I fail to see why you can use the "Wikipedia doesn’t have it" argument, when we also have hundreds of funny articles that the Wiki would never even consider adding.

2. The free advertising bit doesn’t work either jack, at least not generally. You see there is a reason why they call it Euroipods; it’s only available in Europe. If you note the disclaimer in the article it mentions a number of places that do not carry the ability to receive a Euroipod, it is completely true. While they do bring in slightly more revenue with our contribution, it is stunted by the fact that you can't get one unless you live in Europe.

3. "If you really want to feature some unfunny stub, this one shouldn't be it." Okay, I'll address this one too. I'm sure that if anything is featured, it is funny enough to someone to be so. I'm sure that even though it got vetoed allot, it seems to me like your all fighting a loosing battle. Consider the fact that this might be for half a second <dramatic pause> funny. Okay now picture that your not alone in thinking this. Okay now you know how some of us feel, you can now go back to your previous disposition. I don't want this to become a habit, this article has comedy, but it is comedy that is funny the first time. The second time around, it's just stupid, so I agree that in the future featuring articles like Euroipods should not be tolerated, as it steles from what little visible comedy that Euroipods has.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 00:44, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Consider the fact that this might be for half a second <dramatic pause> not funny. Okay now picture that your not alone in thinking this. Okay now you know how some of us feel, you can now go back to your previous disposition. And you didn't address the point of whether or not it's vanity. It's an insignificant little website that's not important enought to have an article. --72.21.41.138 03:06, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It IS funny , to somone, me, RC, and everyone on the left side of that poster up there. I diden't need to adress vanity, your just pulling out the small point that I diden't cover as a way to spite me. Observe, this is funny, it's a blatent ad, and it's funny. Now would you all please FYAD.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning sounds a lot like someone we know. Go home NR, we know you know how to use proxies. Do something else, like buy a BB gun and shoot some cans to get out your frustration.--SirFlammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 03:13, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Your words are lost on me sir, I have no idea what your talking about. (FYAD)--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I created this uproar purely as an advertising gimmick. --—rc(t) 03:11, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Get your Euroipod!

4. Its a senless accusation that you made when you assumend that RC featured it for his own benifit. And besides if he had featured it to get more signups, how would he benifit from it at all? He woulden't. And even further, if it were possible, and he had exploited the Uncyclopedia for this purpose, woulden't that make the article more funny, or at least more historically valuable?

5. Lastly, I went and read the vanity page rules, and I agree with you that Euroipods fits the criteria in a way, but not the way that was intended for a vanity page. Sure it's only funny to a handfull of us, but firstly when I came across the page I diden't like it either, and I have since found the comedy within it. A vanity page is an article that only a handful of users would understand AS A RESULT OF the access that those users have to the topic of the page (ie. a specific person, or game based clan). Euroipods differs for this in the way that everyone has access to the resource that spawned the page, everyone has the ability to understand, as well as think it's funny. If it smells, looks, feels and tastes like a vanity page, it must be. And it is, but just because you don't understand it dosen't mean we havn't provided you with the means to. Secondly this page is still valid, it's funny (to somone), if you really don't like it then go away and stop runing it for those of us who do.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 22:28, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

If we all have access to the source, why don't you tell us exactly where the source is so we can decide if it's funny? I've gone to euroipods.com, but I haven't seen anything that makes this page seem funny. Was there a specific part of it that I missed? --205.188.116.130 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. It's strewn all over this very page, go up a ways and look for a link that takes you to an article about toilets bieng art.--MrJimmyJournaltalk 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So in order to not be vanity, the jokes have to make sense anyway? Um, sorry, because I STILL have yet to understand the joke. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*does a double take* I swear to god, five minutes ago I saw Euroipods as the featured article, and all four "previously featured" articles were also euroipods. Another admin must've reverted it, or the same admin reverted it and is fucking with my mind. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nominate for featured?

Wikipedia has an article about euroipods, but soon won't

PWNED!

It's been deleted from WP. I'd change the template meself, but, uh... well, we know what happened last time I tried to take trivial matters into my own hands... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, gotta love that "PWNED" picture that's been added to the article.

People are missing the point

I get the joke. I also get that it sucks ass and belongs on ED more than Uncyclopedia.--Emmzee 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ripped Off

Just in case any of you felt ripped off (which I very much doubt), you can always go and see the real website. Just a point because nobody has noted that there was actually a website and it wasn't (completely) a joke. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't any free electronics, it's a rip off, man. just because a person is new to a website doesn't mean the person IS a N00B. Now I find out after reading this whole article there aren't any E-Pods!!?? No electronics!!?? I feel so dirty and so used. It's the holidays. What a way to kick a man in his bawls.

I agree with Nintendorulez. This page isn't funny at all. And if it is true that unfunny is funny, then why the hell does anything get deleted? That is backwards to the entire concept of Uncyclopedia.

Also...it's ugly as hell too. I would even accept its unfunniness if it didn't look like the pile of crap it is. I mean, SERIOUSLY! Fix it! Flameviper12 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's mostly been my point. If we feature this, then I imagine some contributors will whine about their crap articles being deleted and say "but u fetured teh yooroipds adn taht was nowher neer as teh funnay as mine article abowt tihs guy at skool naemd joe who is teh gayz0rz so y u deleet my article?" If we keep this one-line article, we'll have to keep them all. And continue featuring them. And who wants that? --User:Nintendorulez 01:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"This article is hilarious!" said O'Brien the admin. "No it isn't!" said Winston Flameviper. The admin sent a shock through Flameviper's spine with the dial. He held up a printed copy of Euroipods to Flameviper's face and said, "Is this funny?" Flameviper adamantly replied "No, it sucks!". The admin held up the page again and said, "If the Party the Cabal says it's funny, than is it?" Flameviper still said "NO!" and another wave of pain flowed through him...

SHUT THE HELL UP AND FIND ANOTHER TOPIC TO FLAME ABOUT. --User:Anidnmeno/sig 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

l'empereur n'a pas des vêtements

I sort-of get the article itself, but I don't get the phrase "The emperor has no clothes" that is used. Can someone explain? ~ Ghelæ the Strangetalkcontribs 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It refers to willful ignorance of something obvious - in this case, that Euroipods isn't funny in itself. Nin likes using the phrase (repeatedly) because he thinks it's clever, which it isn't. —rc(t) 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Euroipods is the worst

For once, I'll agree with an IP. This is the kind of junky junky junk that really shouldn't be here.--Emmzee 18:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please remove the reference to me already?

"This company purchases iPods from the Apple Store directly.... as well as boosting sales from iTunes... Apple are more than happy to have this company give out free iPods, I received one myself - it worked a treat! Flogged in on [[EBay|eBay]] mind you, for 200 quid! No complaints from me!" - '''<span id="Nintendorulez">Anais Nin</span>, USA'''

Not funny, and I seriously don't want my name on this shit page. --User:Nintendorulez 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Nin, get over it. Clearly the reference to you is a sign that we love you. People refer to me negatively all the time and I do not get all bent out of shape about it. Loosen up and find something else to whine over... please??? --User:Anidnmeno/sig 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're clearly only going to encourage more people to take the piss if you get uppity about it. If this is the worst thing that happens to you this year, be grateful. But quit the tedious whining. It's not like anyone's taking your mother's name in vain or anything. Learn to laugh at yourself, it's one of the most important lessons in life. -- Sir CodeineK·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that in five days, this article will be one year old! Happy Birthday, Euroipods! But somebody should still get rid of the "Nin" reference, in my opinion. If someone did, though, what would happen? Insta-ban? Revert-and-a-warning? Or would it be allowed to stand, assuming it was replaced with something that was really funny? I'm just curious. c • > •cunwapquc?05:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mind being referenced on funnyarticles. But not this. And I'm not even an admin. I daresay I'm a non-notable user that Codeine's Mum hasn't heard of, and I don't want to be mocked in a mainspace article. Especially an article the admins decree I'm not allowed to edit, so it's not like I can make it less insulting. --User:Nintendorulez 20:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then... Maybe I'll work on a replacement for the entire section, post it on the one-year anniversary as a "birthday present," and just see what happens. If I get banned then so be it, but at least I'll have acted on the basis of my convictions, and all that rubbish. Still, it would be nice to know what might happen in advance, just for old times' sake! c • > •cunwapquc?21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit we are back on this again!!! I had to double check the timestamps to make sure I wasn't dreaming, maybe, nin, just maybe if you don't whine about this for a whole year the admins might consider removing it, but bringing up the same compalint every few months really isn't getting you anywhere FFS!!!--The Right HonourableMajSir ElvisUmPKUNFICMDAVFHBur.CM and barsUGMF@H (Petition) 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But how is he to know that the reaction wouldn't be something like, "You haven't complained about this for a whole year, and now you decide you're offended by it? What's wrong with you?" Besides, wikis aren't monolithic group identities operating in lockstep, they're diverse communities of people who all have (potentially) a wide variety of opinions. That includes admins - one admin might say it's perfectly OK to replace the "Testimonials" section, and another might come along after the fact and ban the person who replaces it for 6 months, 6 years, or 6 millenia. At Wikipedia, they even have a policy page on it called "No Binding Agreements" or something of that sort. It sucks, and it's one of the big reasons why problems occur between admins and non-admins. The best solution is for admins to simply not do things like this, no matter how justified they are... But maybe that's too much to ask. c • > •cunwapquc?04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a perfect summary of how the admins would respond. Admit it Elvis, either way you'd be flaming me. --User:Nintendorulez 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nin, ok, i made it me. Happy now... go get a life. --User:Anidnmeno/sig 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis, I never made any "whinny temper tantrums" as you so call it. I politely requested months ago that my name be removed, and was instead mercilessly flamed for it, and the reference made to more and more obviously point to me. Now it actually links to my userpage. I find it quite unfunny to mock an ordinary user in a mainspace article, without their permission, and on a page that the individual is specifically barred from editing. An admin maybe, since they run the site, but it's just plain mean to mock regular users in the mainspace. Perhaps if it was funny in the least bit, I might not mind. But it's just unfunny, and serves no humorous purpose other than to mock me for disagreeing with the cabal. And I can't even edit the page to make it less insulting. That's really cruel and unfair. All I ask is that my name be taken off. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. I would appreciate a direct response, rather than more flaming, and you'd better not try making the reference even worse. Please, I just want my name removed. --User:Nintendorulez 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's unfair and cruel that we have to deal with kakun, but we got over it. Nin, seriously, we would not keep messing with you if you would just let it go. Its an article that hardly anyone reads anyway. --User:Anidnmeno/sig 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't work that way, Anidn. If someone is sticking a needle in your back, you forgive them for it (and/or "let it go") after the needle is removed, not while they're still sticking it in your back. I honestly don't understand why people don't see that, but I guess I'm just a "pathetic whiner," huh? c • > •cunwapquc?18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm glad to see there's at least one person who can see my point of view on this. Would it hurt in any way to take the reference out? No. But it does hurt to leave it in. Why have it there? --User:Nintendorulez 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Just remove the link, or have it link somewhere else. That way the unsuspecting person will not know that it's Nin, but Uncyclopedian insiders who know the truth would know who it is really referring to. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the article history, CSM... That's how it was from January 6 all the way until October 15, and if it was interpreted as an attack on a user by admins for that entire nine-month period, why should it be interpreted differently now? c • > •cunwapquc?06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it no longer has a link or span tag, but I really wish it just didn't mention me at all. --User:Nintendorulez 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is this crap?

i have been on uncyclopedia more than a year and I just decided to look at this article. This is the biggest piece of shit I've ever seen. And sorry, but this is not unfunny so it's funny either. It's just......what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah...moronic. And i just love how because the admins think it's funny and about 99 percent of everyone else hates it, it gets featured. Brilliant. Nor do I care that this is almost a year after featuring. Whoever decided that their opinion was better than everyone else's is a pompous, arrogant, hyper-conservative ass. End rant. 24.94.19.107 09:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Whatever

I agree with you for the most part, but why "hyper-conservative"? I thought that overinflated conceptions of the importance of one's own opinions transcended politics. Meanwhile, the article would probably be funnier if it were pared back to its original state, and then a single image were added just below it... The trick is to find the right image. Then, if you click on that image, you see all the added "spammy" parts. Hmm, maybe I'll start a forum on it! Oh, and you forgot to link everyone else. c • > •cunwapquc?14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never thought of this article as that great. It's an in-joke, what can you do? Thankfully, Uncyc has moved on. Or has it? -- Hindleyite 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to move on if the "Nin" were removed, as the section just above this one would indicate! Hopefully then we could all just forget the whole thing ever happened... I'll admit that I have certain ulterior motives for taking this position, but I'm hoping to help end all the pointless "drama" and negativity here by doing so, not create more. Overall, though, I just see it as really unfortunate that certain individuals seem to insist on using articles as a punishment technique, and this is a prime example. c • > •cunwapquc?14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I just want my name removed... --User:Nintendorulez 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Nin's name will never be removed, I added my testmonial, name and link to my userpage right below his. Now he's not alone. I don't know if this helps or makes things worse but I suppose time will tell, and hopefully, it's funny. --Hrodulf 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything other than my name will do here. >_> --User:Nintendorulez 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing about it is, people don't want it removed because they're enjoying watching you complain about it. Removing it would end their fun. Sorry, but it seems to me like it's unlikely to happen. I added my name so I could look stupid also. Now we're both idiots. --Hrodulf 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dun dun DAH! I replaced it with "Oscar, UK". How long do you think it'll be before I'm reverted, banned, and murdered in my sleep? You can remove your name too, Hrodulf, if you want. Though personally I think the everything under the "featured" template should be taken out, save for a "see also" section. But that's just me. •Spang•☃•talk•18:13, 26 Nov 2006

My guess would be about 36 hours, give or take, before User:Elvis or User:Mhaille reverts it. Actually, it might have a better shot at survival if you change it to "Mister Somey, Iowa, USA." That would set the Wikipedia-lovers off like nobody's business, and I certainly don't care one way or the other... Who knows, I might even start writing articles again! Also, I agree - the entire article should be stripped to something resembling its original state. This was one of the reasons I was asking about adding some "NavHeader"-like means of hiding page elements. Ideally, we'd put all of the extraneous stuff into one big table and hide it, with a link saying "Tell me more!" that would toggle the table's visibility on and off. (Ideally, the link itself would also change to "Tell me less!" when you clicked it.) c • > •cunwapquc?18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Later...

Did I say "36 hours"? I actually meant "21 minutes" — just a little typo there!

Anyway, back to what Hrodulf wrote earlier. In my opinion, only a small minority of users are "enjoying" watching Nintendorulez complain about this. Unfortunately, all of them are long-time admins. If he stops complaining about it, they'll simply conclude that they've gotten away with it, and nothing will happen. If he continues to complain, they'll conclude that their little jibe is still having an effect, they'll keep it in place "because it's funny," and still nothing will happen. So the situation will continue no matter what Nintendorulez does. In fact, it will never be resolved until one of the aforesaid administrators (preferably one with enough clout to make it stick, or perhaps even the original offender) decides to start acting like an adult and puts the interests of the website above his/her vaguely-conceived need for payback (and don't forget, this was an incident that happened over a year ago.) As I've said many times, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen, but who knows? One of them could surprise me. It hasn't happened before, but hey, there's a first time for everything! c • > •cunwapquc?18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to piss on your bonfire but I have to disagree with your comments, as I don't see how "Nin, USA" harms the interest of the website. Its not like it actually has his name or links to his userpage, as you yourself have done quite a few times. Have you heard me complaining that my userpage is referenced here or here? The only thing linking Nintendorulez to the Euroipod article in any way is this talk page that you seem determined to keep going on and on and on and so on. I have no idea what you are implying by "need for payback", but I can say that for my part its about the amusement value, not any personal vendetta. The negative reaction to this anti-article is clearly far more amusing that the actual content. This ongoing "debate" though isn't. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

How many times have we been over this, Mhaille? The two links you've pointed out are a direct reaction to attacks you and your unidentified friend made on someone whom, incredibly, you still think I am,here, here, here, and here. You have the power to remove those attacks, not me. In fact, you have the power to remove those "references" to you too, so why don't you? Because by removing them, you'd have to admit that the practice of putting usernames in articles where they're not wanted is wrong? And I obviously don't believe for one second that you're keeping the "Nin" reference on this article for the "amusement value," unless you're referring solely to your own personal amusement, since we all know what that usually involves. I'd have to say that most of us aren't amused by this at all anymore - at least in my case, it stopped being funny after about 48 hours, and that was almost 11 months ago now. Most of us wish it would just fucking stop. So, if you want to end the "whining," then start acting responsibly and get rid of the reference. Simple as that. And hey, why not get rid of the attacks on me too, and I'll get rid of the references to you, so that we can all be buddies again? What a strange idea that must seem! But hey, suit yourself... You always have, after all. c • > •cunwapquc?20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't see "attacks" on anyone. Its interesting that you highlight myself and DG (whom I barely have any dealings with so not sure I can call him a friend, unidentified or otherwise) have been your biggest supporters, including during the time when you had your little tiff earlier in the year. As for being buddies I've never had anything against you in the first place (other than the occasional whinging, but hey, who's not guilty of that from time to time). In fact, if you were to speak to me directly we'd probably get on like a house on fire (holds out a burning olive branch). But thats not the issue, is it?

Who is "most of us", as I can only see the same number of frequent posters here and the usual suspects at that. If "most of us" had wanted it changing, surely it would have already happened. As it is, in its current form the article was voted "Best of Show" in numerous competitions, so I still can't see that many people agree with you that this stopped being funny a year ago. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Sorry to piss on your bonfire but I have to disagree with your comments, as I don't see how removing or changing "Nin, USA" harms the interest of the website. I have yet to hear one argument as to why it should be left there. And if it really isn't meant to reference me, then it wouldn't mean anything to change it, now, would it? --User:Nintendorulez 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, "Guffy" Mhaille, there are basically three ways to go here. You can keep piling on the BS, like you did just now, or you can ban me, or you can just grow up. You're not fooling me, and I doubt that you're fooling anyone else who's been paying attention. Nearly every attack I've seen coming from admins against regular users in main article space has come directly from you. If you want to make things to be all nicey-nice again, then just do it, okay? Otherwise, don't waste my time. You can call it "whinging" if you want, but my time is very valuable, and if I were to bill Uncyclopedia at my usual rate for all the hours I wasted here, totally unsuspectingly, I'd be owed several thousand dollars. And sure, I'd fix it all myself, but oops, sorry - I don't have the access rights! c • > •cunwapquc?20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I was not responsible for the Guffy account (and I have no idea who was), and secondly I really don't want to waste any more times with your delusions of persecution. I'm more than happy to take a joke in the manner in which it was given. I still can't see how you can judge the examples you gave as "attacks" and then refer to me a Goatse loving paedophile. You can either see the funny side or not, nobody cares.

Nintendorulez....as people have stated before the "Nin, USA" reference is not aimed at you (there's not even a link), rather its an ironic reference to your response on this very page. There IS a big difference, IMHO. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

I'll believe you when you start taking action, Mhaille, not just because you say I should. I mean, do you deny being User:GOD!? Do you deny adding the "Nin" reference to Euroipods? Couldn't I be forgiven for thinking that creating sock puppet accounts to go after non-admin users is your personal M.O.? And who said anything about "persecution," anyway? I'm not the one being persecuted - the person being "persecuted" is a college student who, according to him at least, has made exactly one edit on this website during its entire existence. I'm a 45-year-old professional developer who's made about 2,000 edits here, and none on Wikipedia, which is really what this whole stupid issue is "about." (And there IS a big difference, IMHO!) The four articles I linked to above are clear violations of Uncyclopedia's vanity policies, by practically any definition you can come up with. So why are they still there? And if you want the offending references to yourself removed, remove 'em. I don't care one whit. I'd even do it for you, if I thought there was any chance whatsoever that you'd let me do the same on my own (and his) behalf, and end this whole sad, stupid affair here and now. c • > •cunwapquc?21:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action. End of. GOD! isn't under my control, I have only one other account that I edit with and you won't have noticed anything that account has created (I use it to write things without the "Mhaille" baggage). So no....its not my MO at all. I'm a 37 year old professional designer/developer who has made who knows how many edits here and exactly two on Wikipedia (both of them last May), so again I don't know exactly how you think I am linked to this "whole stupid issue".

Just for the record I was actually speaking with Nintendorulez on IRC at the time I added the Nin reference. Even amidst all the ranting over the original Euroipods article he's still a funny and intelligent guy, who I like "speaking" to. So no, I don't deny it, and I've explained why its there. If you'd care to ask him I also tried to calm the whole situation down when he was threatened with a long extended ban over the original article too.

The point I'm making is that because you can't see the humour (no matter how childish) in something doesn't mean that it has no value. As an Admin I have to leave dozens, if not hundreds, of crappy, bitter little childish articles, with "humour" that covers many different genres (and some that you can't categorise). Why? Because there's a seed of humour in them. Because the person who submits that might go on to write something brilliant. Because they may learn from some of the great writers we have here (yourself included) and become better for it...(click tape for stirring music}...over the last year as an Admin I've seen some brilliant writers and photoshoppers evolve, and I'm grateful for any small part that I have had in helping any of them. Tread lightly, for you tread on my dreams....(sound of tape ending)

As I've said before you can either believe me or not, me no care. I'm a busy man. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Right, so the "nin" is an ironic reference to nintendorulez' response on this page? In that case I've thought of something much funnier - changing the "nin" to "Mhaille", as an ironic reference to this discussion about whether or not there should be a name there as an ironic reference to this talk page. Seeing as nintendorulez wants the name removed, and Mhaille wants the name kept, the fact that it'd be name would increase the irony by a lot (seeing as there isn't much in the reference in the first place). Think of it as meta-irony, or as I like to call it, EXTREME irony. Os as an in-joke within an in-joke. I'll go ahead and change it shortly, I don't see any downsides to that change. Correct me if I'm wrong. •Spang•☃•talk•04:50, 28 Nov 2006

Brilliant idea, Spang. Let's see how Mhaille likes it. And a reference to "my response" is still a reference to me, either way. Don't try and reword it to mask it from what it is. You aren't Fox News. --User:Nintendorulez 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to you earlier statement: If you would like to experiment with NavHeaders or whatever the hell they are, I would greatly encourage it, perhaps on a seperate page in you userspace. If you could get it to where it looked pretty good you could post something at the forums and perhaps even get the article changed. I think it'd look alot better if you didn't have to see all of that other crap constantly - especially that big yellow box, talk about ugly... t o m p k i n s blah.ﺞوﻦוףהՃՄண்ஸފއހวอฏม+տtrade websites18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

<damn edit conflicts!> Ooh, 21 minutes! Incredible! Yeah, and I implemented the NavFrame thing earlier today already, you're so behind the times! Though I think the link can only say [show] or [hide]. So it'd have to be "tell me more! [show]". So... get to work on that, I've no idea how that NavHeader thing-a-ma-bob works. <goes to take name out again> I've never been in a revert war before, I hope I'm doing it right! •Spang•☃•talk•18:45, 26 Nov 2006

You're doing just fine... I try to avoid revert wars myself, but it seems like avoiding them doesn't do much good. They'll still call you a "whiner" no matter what, apparently. But anyway, thanks! I haven't been spending much time around here lately, so I hadn't noticed that you'd done that NavHeader thingy. I can't say when I'll get around to it though, because I have a couple of recertifications I've gotta do ASAP... but there's no reason why that couldn't be my next little project. c • > •cunwapquc?18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)</s>

This has turned out to be a lot more vicious than I expected

Guys, I added my name to the article to show that it isn't really that terrible a thing. There are plenty of real things to be upset about, this is the most frivolous battle over nothing I've ever seen in my entire life, except for that time on IRC where people had a huge fight over someone using the letter "Q" where it didn't belong. And that only wins because of the technicality that it involved only one letter instead of one word.

Euroipods would probably be a long forgotten article if not for this ongoing vendetta over nothing. I tried to take Nin's name out before since he was upset about it and I think we have to be pragmatic, right or wrong, it's staying. I'm personally indifferent and as shown by my actions lean slightly towards removing it. But I'm not the king of Uncyclopedia, which I think you'll all agree is a very good thing.

Anyway, now that I'm in there also maybe some of the attention will be off of Nin and on me which will make this less of a humiliating experience for him. I've tried to help on this issue before, since the name isn't coming out I decided this was really the only thing I could do about it. Let's resolve this issue and move on.

And if you're still upset, Nin, make a spoof Microsoft Zune article (Eurozunes?) and put someone else's name all over it. You do have choices you perhaps havn't considered, you know. --Hrodulf 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he probably won't really do it, I was just thinking off-the-cuff. If you've ever looked at my userpage submenu you know most of my concepts are shit anyway, so why should this time be an exception?--Hrodulf 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A is NOT "money"?!

Forsooth! In reality, the "money" point was added in THIS revision, some three months later!

I feel very compelled to revert this hideous act of anti-vandalism and restore it to its original, pristine state. --L 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Testimonials . . . . . dot

I am extremely upset that my name has been removed form the eyroipds arttcle. Seriously, undo that right now. I WANT MY NAME ON. Expecially a link to my userpage. --Hrodulf 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response. I guess my euroipods crusade was a lot shorter than Nin's. Oh well, back to writing too many UnNews articles and such. --Hrodulf 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to see what it was like to have a crusade. Even though it was just a short one, it was fun. Maybe next time I will be able to keep it going for a year, like Nin did. I'm just a n00b compared to him. --Hrodulf 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for the next one, Hrodulf. I've written it already, so it's just waiting for the go-ahead from you. c • > •cunwapquc?00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Children of Hrodulf isn't much of a crusade, Some user, since it appears you shot yourself in the foot big time by writing that. If you want to attack me for being an insensitive asshole to Nin's plight (hey, I'm a New Yorker, of course I'm an insensitive asshole, it's my nature) maybe writing an article criticizing me for it whose content is, um, lets see, approximately 2000 times infinity more offensive than anything in euroipods is somewhat of a self-defeating hypocritical posture for a debate of this tiny magnitude.

Of course, I'm not offended by it because I couldn't imagine anything smaller, pettier or more ridiculous than starting a flame war over the opinion of me held by someone who would respond in this manner to my decision to parody the holy war over euroipods as I have. I find the whole incident funny more than anything else, and this only increases the humor content for me.

Since you already lost the "crusade" by a self-inflicted attack I guess that one's over too. That's two under my belt. Anyone else want to have a crusade? Come on, they get you into the history books . . . --Hrodulf 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, now. Do you or do you not want a crusade here? You can't just say the crusade is over before it even starts. Crusades cost money, take a lot of time to arrange, people have to take time out from their busy schedules, warriors have to get paid, caterers have to order food in advance, and so on. Even if you don't like the crusade you've started, you have to go through with it, no matter what! I mean, at least get on the boat, wave the flag around, maybe scale the walls of Jerusalem a couple times... Then, sure, you can go home, get a sandwich, take a shower, maybe marry the Queen. But not before! I mean, there haven't even been any casualties yet or anything. c • > •cunwapquc?02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault you self-destructed. You can say whatever you want, but I don't believe in wrestling in the mud with a pig, which is what you are. You both get dirty, and the pig (you) likes it. No thanks. Find someone else to play with. Perhaps you can try looking on Encyclopedia Dramatica to find another little drama queen to have your cat fight with. --Hrodulf 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just being all sour grapes because I tried to take your username out of the "Testimonials" section, aren't you? c • > •cunwapquc?05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrodulf, I wouldn't worry about it too much, you haven't really "made it" until someone writes a scathing commentary on your opinions, shortfalls as a human being or just plain points out that you are a "total fag". Its a bit like hazing, but with marginly less spanking. Welcome to the club. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Considering I linked Children of Hrodulf from my userpage, saved its content on a subpage to my userpage, and addressed it here, in the article talk page and in the Benson forum (where I also flamed myself for good measure, see Forum:A FORUM IS NOT ENOUGH BENSON DESERVES A NAMESPACE, I don't think my worrying about it is an issue. Hey, I got GotM nominated my first month here if I recall correctly. If I was sensitive to this sort of thing, I'd have been long gone. --Hrodulf 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for Ewoks singing a bit of the old Ludwig Van, my brothers....I was cured alright. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Ah yes, the Ewoks, the Gungans of the 80's. I never figured out the people who thought Jar-Jar Binks was racist. Last time I checked, Gungans don't actually exist. --Hrodulf 11:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Practically on my first day here I got into an argument with Isra over NRV, and I did get somewhat personally invested, although I don't think it reached anything I'd describe as hatred, more like frustration, perhaps. I now have a huge amount of respect for Isra and his opinion carries a great deal of weight with me.

I do seem to recall some tension between yourself and I, although to be honest, the cause of it eludes me at the moment, I'm assuming it was some sort of editing thing, I honestly just don't remember. What I tried to do was to use tension for a positive purpose, instead of arguing over deletions, I tried to develop information I learned, like the userpage subpage method of article creation, and communicate it to other users, to find a way to defuse tension and make the article creation process work better for everyone.

I've tried to be fair and objective during my time here and to also not let myself be controlled or intimidated by anyone. It's been a fine line, but I've tried my best to walk it. I think it's probably inevitable for tension to develop in a group project like uncyclopedia, but the trick is to find a creative way to resolve the tension, rather than letting it destroy everything you're trying to accomplish.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it's good to know that people's attitudes can change, since I did have a somewhat "rough" time as a noob in terms of acceptance, as most people here did I would think. --Hrodulf 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it helps that I take alot of drugs I've learned to live with people having different opinions then myself. Also, I believe the cause had something to do with... something. I don't know, it was in the ban message, but I'm too lazy to go look. t o m p k i n s blah.ﺞوﻦוףהՃՄண்ஸފއހวอฏม+տtrade websites00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some archaeology later, it'll be fun to try to work out what it was. --Hrodulf 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It was because you huffed a stub back in April that I was trying to expand while I was working on it instead of tagging it, which led directly to the forum discussion that led to the development of the how to get started editing article, so all in all it was a productive bit of interuser tension, I'd venture to say. No big deal, really. Just ordinary stuff that goes on here every day. --Hrodulf 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, later on you microbanned me for suggesting that there should be a howto article for how to admin the site. Apparently that pissed you off. Oh well, it was awhile ago and I didn't even remember it, so it probably really isn't that important. --Hrodulf 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone tell me what any of this has to do with Euroipods? I mean, jeez, get a room.c • > •cunwapquc?02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I still can't work out if Hrodulf is faking this offence, or the crusade really was that short-lived. This is good reality wiki. Bravo! Carry on. •Spang•☃•talk•06:09, 30 Nov 2006

Sorry, but I'm not here to entertain you or your sock puppets. The comedy is finished. You'll have to go to encyclopedia dramatica if you want more, go ahead, you'll fit in better there. Don't come back either. --Hrodulf 06:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My sockpuppet has had nothing to do with this conversation! And I seriously can't tell if you're joking or not. In all fairness, you did ask for a crusade, and you have seen what one of those involves. When someone gets worked up over something they asked for, and does so in a manner entirely fitting of the infamous talk page they do it on, you have to wonder if it's not altogether serious... •Spang•☃•talk•06:40, 30 Nov 2006

He's doing a pretty good job, actually! The ED mention is a little excessive, but since we only really have to convince User:Elvis and User:Mhaille, that shouldn't be a problem. Both of them have been admins over there for months, after all! c • > •cunwapquc?07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, User:Elvis, I absolutely agree. Your ability to predict the tendency of users like me to, as you've so eloquently put it, "winhge" when someone with admin powers who really should know better prolongs a useless, unending, disgraceful flame-war in flagrant defiance of common sense and human decency really is utterly amazing! Why, it's vastly more impressive than my own all-too-meager ability to predict the likelihood that someone who hasn't written an actual article for the website in an entire year, if ever, would one day blatantly spork Wikipedia fourtimesinsuccession and change the original versions merely by swapping a few names and putting the letters "Un" in front of a few words, all in the apparent pursuit of his own self-glorification by comparing his position as one of several dozen obscure, anonymous website administrators to that of a member of the British Parliament! I mean, it's like you're some sort of super-duper prophet or something, only with below-average spelling ability and no appreciable talent for written humor! Bravo, Elvis! Well done! In fact, you get a cookie! Enjoy! c • > •cunwapquc?03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you liked this article...

You're not article whoring, are you? Because that page is aleady in your sig. =P --AAA!(AAAA) 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New Image?

I know this is probably blasphemy or something but maybe could we change the image of the euroipod to this: --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 09:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I really like that. lets see if we can do something with it.--User:Zerotrousers/sig 10:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus! Euroipods is no more!

The website now redirects to "Eurogiveaway" which is crappier that Euroipods but has more stuff. This is the work of Oprah!

History

Can someone please explain to me why this page is so often referenced and why most of it is hidden at first? -Unknownwarrior33

Dead-horse-beating time!

All right, I'll try to keep my points as simple as I can:

This article is hilarious (only with the "hidden" bits, however).

In my opinion, it inherently deserved to be featured.

Howeber, unless Nintendorulez has totally misrepresented the vote, it appears that this article's becoming featured was a dictatorial violation of absurd proportions.

Therefore, this article should not, at the moment, be featured.

However, there is a way out of this, which I humbly propose: an extended (meaning at least, I don't know, thirty votes) , and well-publicized (so it attracts a broad spectrum of both lovers and haters) "recall vote". Those of us who feel that the article is brilliant should have nothing to fear — humor should be appreciable by the masses. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to philosophically separate the sysops from the countless users who get banned for creating nothing but crap, then complain about fascism ("Oh, you people just don't understand funny"). Conversely, of course, neither should those who disagree with the status worry about such a vote.

In any case, I am confident that it would at least garner a "Quasi" from such a vote, but its continued fame and infamy may well be enough to propel it all the way to "re-featured", especially if enough of the original haters change their minds. Of course, the real problem is that a lot, maybe even most, of the people pissed at Rcmurphy will be unable to put a "for" vote without thinking that they are supporting the original vote result as well, which I don't believe they would. So when voting, please don't let it get personal in any way.

No, of course I don't think the article needs to appear on the main page again. But, contrary to such claims as "less than a day of featurization" and " It has been featured and never will be again", "featured" doesn't just last for a day. Featured is forever. (Someone should tell DeBeers). A re-examination of this whole riduculous (sometimes in funny and sometimes in ugly ways) thing is quite apparently needed for the sake of closure, plus our impression to the world beyond Uncyc, and general good will among the community.

Bad idea...? Maybe I don't understand what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you want some sort of formal referendum on whether the article, in its current state, is really feature-worthy. I doubt such an exercise would be worth the fuss, but assuming this were to actually take place, would we be able to discount the votes coming from people who have been personally involved over the last 18 months? Those votes and opinions shouldn't really be considered objective, including my own, assuming I were to ever vote (or opine) on anything around here again. Either way, something like that wouldn't produce "closure" - it would probably just produce more arguing, and as the Wikipedians would say, consensus can always change. But more importantly, while mysteries sometimes call for "closure" in the form of a significant event (i.e., revealment of the solution), fiascoes mostly just require people to forget they ever happened. c • > •cunwapquc?05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see what you're getting at. I suppose, to put it another way, I'm vaguely paranoid about the whole VFH process, and how it appears that there was and continues to be absolutely no way of stopping the sort of thing Rcmurphy did -- which is not so much a personal objection against Rc as a general one against the system. I can't help but wonder, for what next article will a sysop think "Wow, it would be amusing to unilaterally feature this"? Also, why was Rc (as far as I can tell from this page and Rc's talkpage archives) not chastised by any other admins for this action? These are the sort of questions I'm still trying to sort through. If someone showed the policy or guideline that will prevent this from happening again, I would rest more easily, and would be wiling to allow this to be "that one fiasco." Oh, and as far as self-interested votes go -- um, I wouldn't call them irrelevent by any shot, given that you can even nominate your own article. But the more hypothetical votes from people like me (who never contributed), the better. -- Lenoxus 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't contributing to the site when this was all going on, but about the "next article a sysop will unilaterally feature". I really can't see this happening again in my opinion. Just because of the fact that it would trigger something as big as this off again. So I'm 99% sure that that won't happen again. As for the re vote, I doubt that it would do any good. I can't really say why, I just don't think it will solve anything. Kudos for trying to find a way to solve it, but I think the whole issue is in the past. —Braydie17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the kind of humor I'm just not groking — why it was even funny to feature it like that the first time around. I would only get that if the topic itself had to do with unilateral featuring in some appropriate way, like "Freedom of Expression." Or if instead of being somewhere between decent and brilliant, the article was so monumentally bad that the audacity would be that much greater, like Fisher Price. But I'll agree to disagree on that. — Lenoxus 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just rehashing everything from above. Put it this way: it was uncyclopedic. Now let it go. •Spang•☃•talk•00:28, 19 Mar 2007

Right now, I wish this weren't protected

There's always the half-finished monstrosity here, if you're looking for narration. You could like, finish it, and stuff.--<<>> 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

and?

mh. i must be dumb as hell, but i _just_ _dont_ _get_ this article. like whats its point? only the discussion? --195.250.188.109 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, only the discussion. Stop flaming or die Madretsma 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sucker Ninjastar

Sucker Ninjastar

I award Euroipods the Sucker Ninjastar for putting up with so much criticism that would make even Famine cry. –Zerotrousers

Help?

Made this site on Wikipedia...now I need someone to nominate it for Featured article. I'm not too familiar with wikis. Anyone?

Euroipods SuckRocks!

Finally, definitive proof EuroIpods is funnie

Free iPods, being given away in exchange for money....This article instantly negates itself, placing every subsequent statement in the realm of absurdity. The absurd will always be funny when surrounded by the proper context, and worded in the proper tone. Both of those conditions are satisfied by Uncyclopedia and Uncyclopediaists. Therefore, this article is funny. So, nyah. :P

Of course, the same could be said for This page does not exist, if it were created; yet everyone generally agrees that a created "this page does not exist" would not be funny. --YeOldeLuke 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Puppies are cute

Oh, I love puppies soooo much! With their little ears and their sweet kisses! And their waggy tails are soooo cute!!! --Kip>Talk•Works•• 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, puppies are cute yes, as they have their distinctive tiny tails, their typically cute noses and their cutesy little ears, but I think that kittens can be considered cuter by the following formula: Where C is cuteness, S is the size of the kitten/puppy, T is length of tail and F is the cost of food later in life. For example a kitten that is 5 inches long, with a 2 inch long tail, that is fed on cat food costing £1 a tin, the end result is a cuteness factor of 9. But Take a puppy that is 5 inches long, with a 1.2 inch long tail, that is fed on dog food costing £1.50 a tin, the end result is a cuteness factor of 3.75. Or maybe I'm just spouting bollocks because I like ickle wickle kittens wiv dere cuuute likkle paws and dere cuuute likkle walks and dere ikkle bloo eyes! My 2 cents. *ahem* sleepygamer 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You both have good arguments, but you'd have to agree that my goats, with tails of about 2.5 inches, and bodies of about 10-11 inches, and eat tin cans that cost about 10¢, pretty much trump both kittens and puppies in the mathematical sense. --YeOldeLuke 23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that using my maths, goats are cuter, but I forgot to put in the "popularity" variable. Where P is popularity. Popularity being the number of pictures using the animal in question used for comedic purposes. Also youtube videos of the animal in question doing humourous or adorable things. I think, if we try a search for pictures via google. An image search for "Pussy" returns about 5,280,000 results. "Puppy" returns 5,060,000, and "Goat" returns 2,860,000 results. I think that makes the kitten I used earlier have a cuteness factor of 5,280,009. The puppy have a cuteness factor of 5,060,003.5, and the goat have a cuteness factor of 2,860,024.99. Thank you. </completebollocks> sleepygamer 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. With the new improved formula, pussies are indeed better than goats. --YeOldeLuke 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean, who could resist a nice, tiny, furry pussy? A communist, that's who. sleepygamer 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't fair

There should be this much talk on MY talk page. I was going to make a joke, but... I'll leave that to the professionals. Definitely not <insert name here> coz they think they're better than Chuck Norris. Just. Not. Possible. --Xaerun 08:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing part of the picture.

Viewtest.gif and Signup.gif are missing from the picture at the top of the talk page. 71.220.211.235 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they were accidentally deleted. You could try rebuilding the missing parts from the (now different) euroipods homepage if you feel like it. Or maybe try and find the same image in some archive somewhere. •Spang•☃•talk•21:03, 07 Feb 2008

Why did everyone get so pissed off over this. It was obviously a joke, not like a really piss poor article was featured... wait it was... now I'm confused... I want a muffin SirDJ~Irreverent 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

Hmmm....I get what it's meant to be (I've read the in-jokes thing) but I still don't "get it", it's confusing, and not very funny and random and a bit weird and therefore that is why I LOVE EUROIPODS! Yup. - 04:31 2 AprilSirFSt.(QotFBFFNotM)YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!